When incentives backfire
Deci, Koestner, and Ryan's meta-analysis concluded that expected tangible rewards can undermine interest in activities that people already enjoy. Eisenberger and Cameron challenged this conclusion, arguing that rewards can help under appropriate conditions, and the debate has not fully been resolved. Ariely and colleagues reported that very large incentives reduced performance on some tasks in a small-scale study, but incentives clearly improve many routine tasks.
Pressure and attention
Beilock and Carr studied choking, and suggested that pressure may cause experts to attend to automated skills in a way that interferes with them. Pressure can also consume working memory on difficult academic tasks. These effects depend on the task and on the performer's experience.
- Well-learned motor skills may suffer from close monitoring
- Novices often benefit from explicit attention to steps
- Worry can compete with the mental resources a task requires
Constraints and creativity
A review by Acar, Tarakci, and van Knippenberg found that limits on time, budget, or method can sometimes aid innovation, though they may harm it when severe. Baas, De Dreu, and Nijstad found mood-creativity relations that depended on activation and focus, not simply on whether mood was positive. These reviews underline that popular maxims rarely apply unconditionally. Careful attention to the task, measure, and population is essential.
Further reading
- Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth? American Psychologist, 51(11).
- Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6).
- Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134(6).